A Chinese National who claims she was wrongfully denied asylum in the United States because she reported pregnant women pregnant in violation of China’s one-child family planning policies, has lost her bid before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

On February 25, 2008, Suzhen Meng was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain for six months.

Five months later, on July 24, 2008, Meng filed for asylum stating that she had suffered past political persecution when, as a public security officer in her local community, she refused to collect a security fee from residents and wrote a letter to the local public security bureau alleging that the police chief was corrupt.

Meng asserted that, as a result of these actions, her passport was confiscated and she was arrested and held in custody for 14 days, during which time a guard slapped her in the face several times and fellow prisoners beat her on instruction of the guards.

Ten months later, Meng’s passport was returned when she promised not to engage in any further anti-government activities, whereupon she left China.

After having overstayed her visa Meng was later brought before a US immigration hearing.

During that hearing, she testified that in her twenty-two years as a public security officer her duties included reporting all pregnant women to China’s family planning office, including women pregnant in violation of state limitations.

Meng told the judge that she understood that when she reported a woman to authorities, that woman would be punished, typically by being forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.

In addition, Meng testified to having seen women dragged away forcibly by the police.

Meng said that despite the severe consequences to women who were reported as pregnant against China law, she continued to make her reports. In her attempt to receive sympathy she claimed that she sometimes advised women whom she would report as being pregnant to go into hiding or to flee.

On November 3, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge in denying Meng’s application for asylum. That judge had ruled that Meng’s active assistance in the persecution of pregnant women barred her from receiving asylum and ordered her removal from the United States.

In writing the court’s opinion, Judges Reena Raggi explained that asylum is a form of discretionary relief granted when a person shows either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

“Meng does not–and cannot–dispute that forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations constitute persecution on a protected ground,” Raggi wrote. “Nor does she dispute that women in her community who became pregnant in violation of family planning policy were subjected to such persecution.”

Despite the fact that Meng attempted to claim she would be persecuted if asylum were denied the court was not persuaded and called Meng the persecutor, writing that, “Meng’s reports regularly resulted in persecution, she knew that, and she nevertheless continued to report.”

“Meng engaged in such reporting over a period of two decades. In short, her assistance in persecution was not a single, marked departure from her duties, but a regular, and important, aspect of her duties. While Meng may have encouraged some women to hide or flee to avoid the persecution that she knew would follow from her conduct, the record indicates that Meng nevertheless persisted in reporting women with unauthorized pregnancies as long as she served as a public security official. Accordingly, because the record evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Meng assisted in persecution, we identify no legal error in the agency’s determination that the persecutor bar rendered Meng ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal,” the denial of review states.

Taipei, April 30 (CNA) Police in Taichung said a woman from China has confessed to killing her Taiwanese boyfriend and then dismembering and burning his body after his sudden disappearance gained media attention.

An elaborate murder case shocked Taiwan, as a 46-year-old masseuse admitted to killing her 36-year-old boyfriend, before chopping his body into nine pieces.

The suspect, whose family name is Huang Jingwen, immigrated from China and runs a massage parlor in Taiwan’s central city, Taichung. The victim, Lan Kun-yu, owns a lathe factory that has a gross revenue USD$150,000 a month.

The pair began dating 8 years ago when Lan was a factory worker. Three years ago, Huang invested USD$33,000 to sponsor Lan’s bank loan, so he could open his own lathe factory. Lan promised to give her 20% of the profit when the factory started making money. However, Huang found out a year later the factory was already in the green, but her boyfriend never gave her a cent. In addition, Huang reportedly was pregnant with Lan’s child, but Lan allegedly forced her to get an abortion. Huang later said it was then that she began planning the elaborate murder of her lover.

She saved up prescription sleeping pills over two years, and secretly learned how to drive so that she could use a car to dispose of Lan’s body after killing him.

On April 27th, Lan came home drunk. Huang put ten ground up sleeping pills into Lan’s black tea, and wrapped the mattress with black plastic bags before covering it with sheets to avoid blood stains. After Lan lost consciousness, Huang took out a meat cleaver and chopped off his head with two hacks. She then dragged the body to the bathroom to let the blood drain, before cutting it into 9 pieces.

Huang then mixed the body parts with her clothes in 11 separate bags, pretending she had a fight with Lan and was moving out. She drove her boyfriend’s body parts off in a rental car, burned them, and hid the knife behind the bathroom mirror of a motel.

Huang would have gotten away with the almost perfect murder, but while the police were questioning her about Lan’s disappearance, they brought up her abortion from two years ago and she became emotional. She admitted to murdering Lan, citing the abortion as her motive to kill him. Police are investigating whether she had an accomplice.

Even though China has displayed hostility toward the United States for having its warships into the South China Sea, Beijing has been invited to participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific, or RIMPAC, naval exercise to be held off Hawaii, according to report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Ads by Google

Part of having China participate is the hope that there can be closer U.S.-Chinese military-to-military cooperation and coordination, but recent comments by Chinese President Xi Jinping suggest a new military assertiveness on China’s part that will be a challenge to U.S. military presence in the area. READ MORE

On the night of June 6, 2012, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers received an emergency email about a Chinese woman in danger of forced abortion.

At least a dozen family planning officials broke into the home of Cao Ruyi, five months pregnant with her second child, and dragged her to the hospital for a forced abortion.

On June 3, 2012, Feng Jianmei, was beaten and dragged into a vehicle by a group of Family Planning Officials while her husband, Deng Jiyuan, was out working. The officials asked for RMB 40,000 in fines from Feng Jianmei’s family. When they did not receive the money, they forcibly aborted Feng at seven months, laying the body of her aborted baby next to her in the bed.

Just a few weeks ago, blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng, China’s highest-profile opponent of forced abortions carried under the country’s one-child policy, made global headlines with his daring escape from home confinement and six-day stay in the U.S. Embassy.

Amidst all this publicity on the horrific way China treats women and forces abortions, we see IPPF , International Planned Parenthood cozy with the family planning arm of China.

China’s Vice Minister Chen Li firstly thanked IPPF for its long term support and assistance to China’s family planning program, and hoped that the two sides would strengthen and deepen cooperation in the field of reproductive health/family planning. The Vice Minister briefed the Director-General on China’s principles and progresses made in population and sustainable development, and said that the Chinese Government insisted on making the development of human beings as the ultimate goal for development, and putting great emphasis on the mutual influencing and inter-linked connections between population, sustainable utilization of resources, environmental protection and sustainable development. He said that the population program of China had not only made important contributions to the stabilization of China’s population but also that of the world.

International Planned Parenthood’s Director: Mr. Tewodro Melesse expressed appreciation for the fruitful cooperation between IPPF and China in the past over 30 years and said that IPPF would conduct a range of activities in 2012 to mark the 60th anniversary of IPPF. He hoped that China would take an in-depth part in relative activities and provide support to IPPF as it always did.

That was not the first time the IPPF director met with China’s Family Planning teams….On the afternoon of July 13, 2011, Dr. Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of National Population and Family Planing Commission of China (NPFPC) met with Dr. Tewodros Melesse, Director General Elect, IPPF in Beijing.

Vice Minister Zhao Baige expressed her congratulations to Dr. Tewodros Melesse and her sincere gratitude to IPPF for its consistent support and assistance for years to China’s population and family planning program. She said, Dr. Tewodros Melesse was our old friend.

In 2009 Gill Greer, director-general of the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, told Xinhua that the family planning policy has contributed a great deal to China’s remarkable economic and social achievements over the past 30 years.

By adopting the population control policy, Greer said, China has reduced its population growth rate and alleviated problems from overpopulation.

“Thus, the policy is very conducive to China’s development in various aspects such as economy, education and health care services..China won’t have achieved so much in the country’s development if it did not pursue its population control policy,” she said.

In a chilling op-ed, Norman Fleishman, the former vice president of Planned Parenthood World Population, recently called for enactment of the Obama contraceptive mandate, saying that it “along with China’s ‘one child policy’ is a start” at avoiding a world “doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.”

Fleishman is a signer of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), the reaffirmation of the credo that Planned Parenthood’s founders and funders professed. Planned Parenthood’s roots are plunged deep into the poisonous ground of secular humanism.

According to a report in CNS News, IPPF’s China affiliate is the China Family Planning Association (CFPA), which has been an IPPF member since 1983 and itself also receives funding from the UNFPA. According to the IPPF Web site, the CFPA “supports the present family planning policy of the government, which is appropriate for the present national situation.”

When the CFPA was established on May 30, 1980, a brief Xinhua news agency report stated that “the association will implement government population-control policies – the encouragement of one-child families and the gradual reduction of the population growth rate.”

Internationally, one of IPPF’s five “priority focus areas” (the five As) is abortion – “advocating for the right to safe abortion services and providing them to the fullest extent permitted by law.” (The other four are adolescents, AIDS, access – to services and information – and advocacy.)

When Congress appropriated $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund, the organization that provides family planning services, such as birth control and abortion, to developing nations.

Among these nations is China, a nation whose “family plan” is a one-couple, one-child policy that coerces women to abort pregnancies that are not state sanctioned. The horror stories of women being subjected to forced abortions and involuntary sterilization under communist China are too numerous to be dismissed.

That may be why President Bush is contemplating exercising his presidential prerogative, under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, to block foreign funding that supports coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization. The amendment gives the president the sole discretion to stop such funding, and both President Reagan and the first President Bush used the amendment to block monies to the UNFPA due to its involvement with China.

But the president’s actions have sparked an outcry from the National Organization for Women and many feminist voices, which want America to support the UNFPA. But this position ignores the plight of Chinese women and funnels American tax dollars into supporting China’s policy. On this matter, NOW has ceased to be pro-choice: It has become de facto pro-abortion.

And after years of applauding President Clinton for opening the money spigot to UNFPA on the grounds that the organization was not directly involved in forced abortions, NOW is crying “foul!”

Yet the actual foul may have occurred in Congress when it approved the funding of family policies in China. It cannot claim to have acted out of ignorance. U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., held a well-publicized press conference to highlight the brutality of Chinese family policy.

Last year, witnesses from China told the U.S. Senate Committee on Human Rights about the brutal and unsanitary coerced abortions in China and how pregnant women fled into hiding.
“Once I found a woman who was nine-months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery,” Gao Xiaoduan, former family planning officer with the Chinese government, testified in tears before the U.S. House of Representatives. The baby was born alive, its lips sucking, its limbs stretching, Xiaoduan said. “A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died, and it was thrown into the trash can.”

News stories of one-child atrocities abound. For example, a recent account in the Telegraph reported on Huaiji county — an area targeted for more than 20,000 abortions and sterilizations. “Medical” personnel with portable ultrasound equipment are expected to travel through the region, testing women, and forcing abortions on those with “unofficial” pregnancies.

Organizations like the D.C.-based think tank, Cato Institute, have spoken out consistently in protest. Cato includes the one-child policy on a short list of the greatest genocides of the 20th century.

So, USFPA funding passed Congress not due to ignorance of the facts but probably due to political pressure. In the forefront of support for the bill were so-called pro-choice congresswomen like Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., and Connie Morella, R-Md. “Feminist” organizations like NOW and the Feminist Majority lobbied hard to preserve this Clinton legacy.

The “pro-choice” voices were so determined that they seemed willing to ignore the systematic brutalization of women. After all, the UNFPA has long exported a liberal, NOW-styled reproductive agenda to the Third World.

How do “pro-choice” advocates justify supporting a forced abortion policy? They tend to make one of three arguments.

First, they deny China forces women to abort. During her keynote speech at the 1990 NOW National Convention, then-President Molly Yard boldly claimed that the Chinese government only encouraged women to abort extra children, using education not force. (The policy had been implemented in the early ’80s.)

Second, NOW states that forced abortions are not performed in regions where the UNFPA operates and the agency has no direct involvement. The actual charge against the UNFPA is complicity, however, not direct participation. For example, if the UNFPA buys the ultrasound equipment for Huaiji county, it would be supporting forced abortions without performing them. Moreover, it is difficult to believe assurances that the UNFPA will operate only in regions where abortions are voluntary: The one-child policy recently became national law, which will be implemented this September.

It is not clear how NOW regards the stories from brutalized Chinese women. NOW’s Web site and its other information sources seem strangely silent on this matter. There are extensive discussions of atrocities against women, such as the Taliban’s treatment of women, but discussion of China seems to focus on the role of the UNFPA. For example, a December 2001 NOW Legislative Update speaks of “the mistaken impression that UNFPA performs abortions in China.” It skips over the anguish of Chinese women and the fact that the one-child policy is an inherent denial of reproductive freedom.

The third argument for UNFPA funding involves a prime mission of the agency — to “stabilize” world population. Thus, in an infamous 1989 appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Molly Yard described the one-child policy as “among the most intelligent in the world …” Pro-abortion zealots seem to support not only the UNFPA funding but also the one-child policy itself. In doing so, they are betraying both women and reproductive “choice.” If this is not the case, then now is the time for them to speak out clearly. Unless NOW campaigns as vigorously against China’s one-child policy as it did against the Taliban’s treatment of women, it should abandon the rhetoric of reproductive “freedom.”

In a Dec. 12 speech to the National Press Club, NOW President Kim Gandy pleaded passionately to preserve reproductive choice for her daughters. Why do Chinese daughters deserve less?

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the forthcoming anthology Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.